Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Traitors Among Us

William Bennett argues that Jay Rockefeller may have performed an act of treason by warning Syria that the President was planning an invasion of Iraq.

The insurgency began almost immediately after we took Baghdad. Even before that, we saw large trucks pouring across the Syrian border, and it seems that every major offensive launched by our military attacks rebels on the western edge of Iraq. Coincidence?

In addition, Kay summarized some of the Survey Group's discoveries, which included: a clandestine network of laboratories and safe-houses controlled by the Iraqi Intelligence Services containing equipment suitable for CBW research; reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientists home; documents and equipment hidden in scientists' homes that could be used for resuming uranium enrichment activities; and a continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD missiles.

What was going on here? It almost seems that the Iraqis were warned in advance! They had the means of reconstituting their program, but were waiting for something; what could that have been?

What we are witnessing is unprecedented; an entire political party has turned traitor in a quest to regain power-with the complicity of the media. TRAITOR. We have to call this what it is. If Rockefeller leaked our military plans to the enemy he committed an act of treason. The endless criticizms of the Commander-in-Chief, the ``Bush lied and people died`` mantra coming not from private citizens but from the ``loyal opposition`` while we are engaged in hostilities encourages and emboldens our enemies while disspirits our own military. Americans are dying because of this treasonous behavior by the Democrats! Their lust for power has become more important than anything to them, even the security of the Nation.

If we lose in Iraq we will have to fight the terrorists here. It is that simple. Whether the Iraqi invasion was a good idea or not will be immaterial after a certain point; we will witness an explosive growth of terrorism overseas as our allies flee from us, we will see Europe desperately making peace with them in return for promises of safety, we will eventually see the use of weapons of mass destruction on American cities. We must win in Iraq! The endless stream of defeatism and criticizm of our efforts by the Democrats is not simply a disagreement over policy; it is an active attempt to subvert our war efforts for their political benefit. Let`s call it what it is-treason!

If we lose this, it will be solely a failure of will, and that failure will rest with the Democrats and MSM. This is as serious as a heart attack; our loss in Iraq will probably be the beginning of the end for Western Civilization. Europe has no stomach for the fight, and Islam will overshadow the Earth like a plague of locusts. Our way of life depends on our resolve here and now. We are in a pivotal moment in history, and our actions will decide our fate. All depends on this.

There was a time when traitors were hanged; now they make appearences on Sunday morning talk shows!

10 Comments:

I am so glad you posted this. I was going to say something about it on my blog but you capture my outrage, yes borrowing a favoriate liberal term I am outraged. Why isn't Russert and all the other weenies in the MSM barking about this? Well, that's a silly question... He's a Democrat.

This is a great piece of writing. Of course I may feel that is so, because you have expressed my own feelings so well.

The Democrats are quite willing to bring us to the brink of destruction, if it will get them their congressional power back.

I can hardly watch Fox news anymore, because, in the name of fair and balanced, even they allow the Liberals to present their unchallenged point of view, one that is full of out and out lies.

The Democrats have committed untold acts of treason over the past few years, and not once have they been called to task for it by the Republicans. They have no fear that anyone will call them on their behavior at this point, especially not by the MSM.

I agree with both commenters, Tim. You have captured my own sense of outrage and anger at these spineless cowards who will sell their own country out to gain a little power for themselves. They are despicable and this should be shouted from the rooftops. Treason is treason! Great post! I will also link this up -- deserves to be widely read!

Gee, with all that traitorous gossip out there, and all those cia reports (from what, 1992????) about WMDs, you'd think they would have found them by now. But they haven't. Why, they haven't even found any place that could make WMDs. Hmmmm. Well, maybe they did move them to Syria before our little invasion. But there's no credible evidence of that, either. Hmmmm.

I also wonder if it would be a bit unkind to remind you, Mr. Birdnow, that the senator's remarks came before the invasion, not during, so your point of endangering the troops is irrellevant. As far as traitorous is concerned, he only told the Syrians what the W Bush admin. was saying, anyway; in that we were going to invade iraq, come hell or high water, or lack of WMDs.

Democrats have a long and glorious tradition of treason dating back to roughly the Vietnam War but perhaps earlier. The future Democrat leaders and icons engaged in treason during Vietnam J. F. Kerry and his merry band meeting with communist leaders in Paris, Hanoi Jane Fonda manning an anti-aircraft gun emplacement. The propaganda value alone was priceless to our enemy, and one cannot begin to calculate the demoralizing effects it had on our own troops.

Their efforts to “oppose the war” by being the willing dupes of the enemy that we were engaged in hostilities with emboldened the North Vietnamese into resisting indefinitely when they clearly had no hope of achieving a military victory. For the Democrats Vietnam is alive and well, it’s just a few thousand miles and 35 years to the west of where it began.

No the search for WMD did not produce a working model of a “Little boy” or “Fat Man” type device, but there were enough constituent parts found in Iraq (since Mar. 2003)to make Saddam Hussein a serious threat to the world at large. Then there’s that little issue of his undeniable and endless support for terrorists organizations. Hmmmm

1. If you would bother to read the or the Kay report, where Mr. Kay stated;

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.

The fact is, Jeff, Saddam kept his program at the ready, to be reconstituted as soon as the pressure was off. We could not keep the pressure on indefinitely.

If you would do more than read liberal media outlet propoganda, you would know that banned materials and equipment have turned up all over.

2. I wonder if it would be unkind to remind you, Jeffox, that the Senator`s remarks came DURING hostilities with Al-Quada, and that your beloved Senator leaked privileged information to an enemy to thwart U.S. policy? Perhaps you don`t know that Congress approved an invasion of Iraq during the presidency of Bill Clinton? You can`t spin your way out of this fact; you can put a tuxedo on a baboon and call him a gentleman, but he`s still a baboon! We were at war at the time these statements were made, and they are still treason!

Thank you for your kind response to my post. Your points are a bit non-valid, however. First of all, it's no secret that no WMDs have been found in iraq. None. This, of course, is definitely not to say that Saddam wasn't tyring hard to get them or produce them. He just failed. That's common, you know, most WMDs are very difficult to produce. As to the assertion that evidence of banned materials existed all over Iraq, I don't think it's too hard to point out that none of the banned materials found was a WMD.

As for point number two, I will remind you that the war against Al-Quaida was being fought in Afghanistan, not Iraq. That's a pretty big difference. Syria was an ally then. Where's the treason??? As for the assertion that congress approved an invasion of iraq during the Clinton era, as I recall, they authorized the use of force as necessary to enforce the no-fly zone that most of Iraq was at the time. Not an invasion. That's not spin, that's fact. At the time, President Clinton did what he could to keep Saddam boxed in, and did a pretty good job of it, too, given the fact that there were no WMDs found in Iraq even though Saddam tried real hard to get them.

Oh, and because you reminded me, keep in mind that that same congress also withdrew funds for the raid that would have gotten OBL back in 1998/9, thus preventing 9/11 in the first place. WAG THE DOG they said. Now you spin. :)

Al Zarkawi was IN BAGDHDAD at this time; the War was not just against Al Quada in Afghanistan. The President made it perfectly clear that we were going after terrorists of international reach (not just Al Quada) and that the War was going to be on multiple fronts-you liberals have very selective memory on that.

Here, Jeff, is the resolution authorizing the use of force. It authorizes the President to do whatever necessary, not merely enforce the no-fly zone (which was already authorized). I hate to point this out, but Saddam USED WMD`s; he wasn`t just trying to get them.

Oh, and because you just reminded me, 3 times President Bill Clinton was offered OBL by the Sudanese, and thrice he turned down the offer-because he didn`t want any messy complications to impugn his legacy.

Jeff, you are an example of what I`m talking about; you want to politicize this most serious issue. In your case, I suspect you don`t grasp the enormity of what is going on around you. You have lived in a comfy cosy world, and you can`t believe that there are enemies who really do want to kill us, and who could actually pull it off. Where are the 100 missing Russian suitcase nukes? Where did Pakistan send weapons? North Korea? What happens when Iran gets the bomb?

Iran needs to be dealt with yesterday, but the President can`t because of this ``Bush lied and people died`` mantra. Because of petty partisanship we are going to see Iran go nuclear-and Iran WILL give these weapons to terrorists. Given the porous borders (Bush`s fault) it will be easy to carry a bomb into the United States. Will you wake up then?

The third or fourth paragraph down says they weren't WMDs. Did you miss that part?

> Here, Jeff, is the resolution authorizing the use of force. It authorizes the President to do whatever necessary, not merely enforce the no-fly zone.> Perhaps you don`t know that Congress approved an invasion of Iraq during the presidency of Bill Clinton?

The date on the report is 2002. Clinton wasn't President then.

> I hate to point this out, but Saddam USED WMD`s; he wasn`t just trying to get them.

Well, yeah, during the father Bush's and Reagan's administrations. Why didn't they invade? Keep in mind, the first gulf war was fought because Iraq invaded Kuwait, not because they used WMDs against the Kurds and during the Iran/Iraq war.

> Oh, and because you just reminded me, 3 times President Bill Clinton was offered OBL by the Sudanese, and thrice he turned down the offer-because he didn`t want any messy complications to impugn his legacy.

Source, please? Preferably a reputable one. . . .

> You have lived in a comfy cosy world, and you can`t believe that there are enemies who really do want to kill us, and who could actually pull it off.

No, Mr. Birdnow, I live in Minnesota. You know, where the weather can kill ya just fine. :) Also, please, until you live inside my skull, don't bother telling me what I believe, ok? No offense, but there are far better (and less patronizing) ways of saying what you mean.

> Iran needs to be dealt with yesterday, but the President can`t because of this ``Bush lied and people died`` mantra. Because of petty partisanship we are going to see Iran go nuclear-and Iran WILL give these weapons to terrorists.

Oh, that's what's holding him back, eh? I thought it was ineptitude, but thank you for pointing out that it's really his tendency to blame others for his mistakes.

But, with all of that, I think I've made my point(s). I welcome any further exchange from you, Mr. Birdnow. This is fun.

Here is the original Congressional resolution from 1998. I had posted the 2002 piece by mistake. Note what it says;

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

You said;

I hate to point this out, but Saddam USED WMD`s; he wasn`t just trying to get them.

Well, yeah, during the father Bush's and Reagan's administrations. Why didn't they invade? Keep in mind, the first gulf war was fought because Iraq invaded Kuwait, not because they used WMDs against the Kurds and during the Iran/Iraq war.

And that was not the sole reason for the invasion. Lest you forget, 3000 Americans were killed as a result of a terrorist attack in 2001, and the President opened a second front against Islamic terrorism so that they wouldn`t open one here.

I posted this in No WMD`s comment section, but it fits here;

``WMD`s were not the central reason for the invasion of Iraq, anyway. It was ONE reason. The President rightly wanted to open a second front on the terrorists, and Iraq was the obvious place to go; there were numerous U.N. resolutions against them, Congress had already given it`s approval, Saddam had been shooting at our planes and had attempted to assassinate a former President, Al Zarqawi and other terrorists were being harbored in Iraq, and the Iraqi`s had a terrorist training camp in Salman Pak, a suburb of Baghdad. Saddam was paying $25,000 dollars to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine. Furthermore, from a geopolitical standpoint Iraq was ideal; a broad, flat, open plain, easy to move equipment through. Iraq bisected the two terror masters-Iran and Syria. Iraq had been the most urbane and cosmopolitan nation in the middle-east, which suggested we would have an easier time rebuilding. Saddam was a terrible tyrant, and we knew we would be supported at least by the Kurds if we removed him. Iran would have been a far more difficult undertaking.``

You said;

Oh, and because you just reminded me, 3 times President Bill Clinton was offered OBL by the Sudanese, and thrice he turned down the offer-because he didn`t want any messy complications to impugn his legacy.

You have lived in a comfy cosy world, and you can`t believe that there are enemies who really do want to kill us, and who could actually pull it off.

No, Mr. Birdnow, I live in Minnesota. You know, where the weather can kill ya just fine. :) Also, please, until you live inside my skull, don't bother telling me what I believe, ok? No offense, but there are far better (and less patronizing) ways of saying what you mean.

Do you live in a house? Do you have central heat? Indoor plumbing? a car? a T.V.? You obviously have a computer. Next to the rest of the world, next to the poor you live in a very comfy cosy world (so do I). It`s easy to lose sight of the hatred of those allied against us.

I was trying to be generous and give you the benefit of the doubt-lest I tar you with the same brush as Rockefeller and the Democrats. I suspect they KNOW full well what they are doing, and merely don`t care. I`m trying to make the point that you are misguided.

You said;

Iran needs to be dealt with yesterday, but the President can`t because of this ``Bush lied and people died`` mantra. Because of petty partisanship we are going to see Iran go nuclear-and Iran WILL give these weapons to terrorists.

Oh, that's what's holding him back, eh? I thought it was ineptitude, but thank you for pointing out that it's really his tendency to blame others for his mistakes.

You are surely not suggesting that Bush can launch an attack on Iran without Congressional authorization? Thank you for pointing out that it`s really the blind partisan hatred of others who would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.

Jeff, we KNOW those weapons were in Iraq in the `90`s, and now they are not. Where did they go? You don`t just build a bonfire and burn sarin gas; these weapons had to be dismantled, and there should be evidence of that dismantling. Where are the records? Where are the factories and labs? Why can`t we find proof that they were gotten rid of? The burden falls on you here. I`ve made my case, and you have ignored the points made in the Duelfer and Kay reports because they don`t fit your mantra. I`ve suggested that Saddam had plenty of time to send those weapons to his sister Baathist party in Syria, and that we have plenty of evidence that those weapons were hastily disposed of. It`s your turn to prove that they were destroyed.

Jeff, this far too serious to keep playing these petty ``gotcha`` games. The left, in utter desperation, has simply refused to accept that we are even at war. They have no plan.

Starting right now, what would you do? I don`t want to hear a word about Bush, tell me what we need to do at this moment to guarantee the security of the United States. We never get any concrete plans from the liberals in this country; we keep hearing about how bad Bush is, and how we need to bring the U.N. into it (so they can rape and pillage like they`ve done in AFrica).

Let`s hear your proof that there were no WMD`s, and let`s hear your solution to this crisis.